A no-win situation in a debate where any response you give is considerd to support the premise?

Sue writes:

I'm new here, so bear with me, ok?  Dr. Bo, would you give an example of a self-sealing argument, besides the original post?  Does a self-sealing argument mean that it is indisputably true factually and everybody knows this because it is common knowledge?  Or might it be opinion unsupported by evidence?  Except Person 1 uses Person 2's answer as evidence of the truth of the original statement.

Sort of a "There, you see?  That proves my point."

If I may make a guess, possibly a non-sequitur. 

 

Bo Bennett, PhD writes:
[To Sue]

Hi Sue. See this link for examples and full explanation: self-sealing argument . This topic came up recently with the idea that "all white people are racist," and if any white person denies that, it is just proof of their racism :) This type of argument is one where no evidence can be used against it. This is similar to a conspiracy theory where what should be considered reasonable evidence against the claim is seen as evidence for the claim, "e.g., that's exactly what the government would say if they were covering it up!!"

Valentino Giudice writes:

[To Bo Bennett, PhD]

Correct me if I am wrong please.

While in the aforementioned case the argument from Person 1 is clearly wrong, "one [argument] where no evidence can be used against it" is not necessearly wrong in all cases.

For instance, when it comes to mathematical theorems or tautologies, no evidence could possibly be used against them, yet they are correct. Indeed, I think many robust logical arguments outside of maths have the same property. If you prove something is logically impossible and therefore false, then no evidence could be possibly used against you, if you argument is valid.

Indeed, the example:

> Wherever you go, there you are.

Is actually true, although unnecessary to specify. The person saying this sentence is right.

The argument from Person 1 in the example, instead, is very very different:

> Your response totally backs up my point.

Person 1 is only right if we assume Person 2's response actually does back up his point.

In other words, it looks to me like the meaning of "Self-Sealing Argument" is rather vague and it's being used to describe two very different things:

• Somebody says something which is essentially a tautology. The assertion therefore has very little value, but it's correct. In a way, this is not bad. It is useless, but not wrong nor fallacious.
• Somebody makes an assartion or states an argument and refuses to accept any evidence against it or any counterargument. If evidence against it or counterarguments, they will consider this to be evidence for their argument or conclusion, without showing that it is so. In this case, the person might very well be wrong.

Bo Bennett, PhD writes:
[To Valentino Giudice]

Sure. Remember that fallacies don't have to be wrong. Someone can be arguing fallaciously and be factually correct. This is about reasoning. Using a self-sealing argument is problematic in reasoning because it fools people to think the answer is an explanation, when it is not.

TrappedPrior (RotE) writes:
[To Sue]

What Dr Bo said is correct. It could also be classed as the fallacy of opposition if your opposition is used as proof that they are right, in general.

A: "All white people experience white fragility."

B: "I disagree, because-"

A: "The fact you disagree with your fragility is evidence of it."

This creates a circular argument with premise 1) someone disagrees with me, and conclusion c) they are wrong, and premise 1) they are wrong because conclusion c) they disagree with me.

Effectively nothing is proven, it is an endless loop that exchanges no useful information and mostly serves to reassure a person that they are right (begging the question) no matter what someone else says (willed ignorance).

Sue writes:
[To Rationalissimo]

Rationalissimo,

Trying to work through this. I came up with this diagram: 

p1) "All white people suffer from white fragility"

because

p1) AND c) AND p1) :  "All white people suffer from white fragility" and "The fact that you disagree with your fragility is evidence of it" therefore "All white people suffer from white fragility" 

If that's right, yeah, that's circular.  No way around it.

I found "therefore" is one of the signs that this is an example of begging the question, so I put it in there. It seems to fit,  Is begging the question always circular? Or is it the assumption of "white fragility" that makes it begging the question?  What the heck does that mean anyway? What does Person A mean by "white fragility" would probably be a more respectful question. 

It appears that Person B is white because of the pronouns "you" and "your fragility". I see "your fragility" as a something of sneaky personal attack and kind of provocative.  Person B themself is now additional proof of "All white people suffer from white fragility".

Are you saying that no matter how Person B tries to discuss it and any facts or evidence they provide, it will be ignored and used as evidence of premise 1)? Or will Person A just deny Person B's evidence?  Is that willed ignorance? 

Thanks for this interesting example Rationalissimo

Sue

Sue writes:

Thank you Dr. Bill.  That was the first question I had as well.  What is the gender of Person 1 and Person 2? But, as you explain here, it doesn't matter because we don't know. Is Person 1 making an assumption of the gender identity of Person 2 and disagreeing with Person 2's disagreement?  

DrBill writes:
[To Sue]

You're welcome, Sue, and thanks back.  Simple rationality is not always achievable or recognized, even here among the mostly rational.